Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Orchard Mesa Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Junction council weighs Orchard Mesa Pool options: RFP, district or status quo as rec center opens
Summary
Staff presented consultant findings that Orchard Mesa Pool's mechanical systems are at end of life and outlined five options (status quo, basic modernization, conversion, RFP for public‑private partnership, creation of a recreation/special district). Council generally supported issuing an RFP while directing staff to study district formation and potential ballot timing.
City parks staff laid out the condition and options for Orchard Mesa Pool, which consultants found to have reached the end of useful life for major mechanical and filtration systems. The pool, built in 1983, remains a unique public aquatic facility in the community but carries significant capital and operating costs.
Parks & Recreation Director Ken Shermno summarized the study: engineers and an operational consultant concluded the facility's major systems need replacement; demolition cost estimates (from earlier studies) exceeded the land value; a statistically valid community survey favored a single modern recreation center; and roughly three‑quarters of Orchard Mesa Pool users live outside the immediate neighborhood. Staff presented five options: keep patching the facility (status quo, projected subsidy ~$400k–$441k in 2026), basic modernization (capital ~$5.7–6.2M and annual subsidy ~$450k), conversion options (limited by gym demolition), a request‑for‑proposals to solicit public‑private partners, or creation of a recreation/special tax district to provide ongoing funding.
Council debate touched on equity and timing concerns: several members supported issuing an RFP to see if a private or nonprofit partner would operate or renovate the asset; others urged studying a special district, grant funding and voter input to underwrite long-term subsidy. Councilmembers asked staff to explore district formation with Mesa County and District 51, to draft an RFP that specifies ranges of potential city support, and to bring options back at a March workshop. Some councilmembers urged allowing more time for public outreach rather than rushing to a ballot measure this November; others expressed urgency to find a stable solution before the existing agreement with the district expires.
Staff emphasized that even with partner prepayment or a district, capital costs to renovate the pool would likely be multiple millions of dollars and that operating subsidies remain a persistent challenge. The council did not adopt a final option but directed staff to pursue parallel tracks: prepare RFP language for solicitation and study district and ballot options with county partners, and to seek possible short extensions from District 51 to avoid an abrupt closure while the exploration proceeds.
Next steps: staff will draft RFP materials, return with analysis on district formation and potential funding mechanisms, and schedule follow-up discussion at the March workshop.
